Baccarat Marigny De Grilleau - Main Topic -

What about the idea of a continued stream? For instance. Suppose we're playing roulette. And we got seven singles. Then we walk away and come back five minutes later. Do we now wait for a 3 series? Or do the intervening results that we missed make our decision untenable?

So in Baccarat must our decisions be completed within one shoe and not extend to the next shoe results?

J

 

I think unless you have access to the results I would likely wait for another cycle before I bet on it.

 

Good question - each event is independent and we collect a window of events with the help of math and probability calculation.
So we know that 14 singles and 2 series of three is 3 STDV and we cut the selection in half or above with no series of three.

This means we can get seven singles or more in a row and it will stop when a series of three shows.
Then we have an imbalance where the overrepresented events have the majority of hits and now the underrepresented events show once.

Here we know that there is a likelihood for more series of three or larger series to show if regression will become true.
A simple test is to take seven bankers or more that end with one player. then what happens for the next seven decisions?

I run a simulation where I target eight of the same kind or more wait for the opposite to hit once and then check the remaining eight future events.
The majority was two to three hits or more as part of regression and one sequence had none, losing sequence.

Mention this because seven or more versus opposite that will be part of the correction rather than getting another seven in a row with no regression.
But the problem with ordinary events and not using the Law Of Series is that you can only win once when we use The Law Of Series we can win twice based upon the same math and probability calculations from Marigny De Grilleay.

I will run one simulation to illustrate this and post it.
What I am curious about and want to see done with a larger test is the median value or gap between losing windows with no regression versus windows with regression.

Cheers

 

I'm curious about it too. In Baccarat it appears we might get an opportunity in 25% of shoes. Today I got.5 opportunities in about 14 shoes.

I stii wonder about when to stop if not see a 4 series. Here's some shoes with the start highlighted.

P21326112113113212121112111311331314 If we keep going we get LLLWWLWWLWWLLWWW

B21213111111111114. W

B32122334131115131121121114. W

211123642213611411221211111111323 shoe end. LWLWW

So it appears that after losing to an initial 3 series future 2's and 3's don't hurt us. What is the SD and regression odds of getting overwhelmed by more singletons if continuing on?

J

 

I set the limit to two series of three with a value of 1 each, that is a total of 2.
If you get a series of four in a row you have a value of 2.

After that, you can get singles but then you know that you have a 3 STDV sequence and you won.
14 versus 2.

After that, you depend on more regression or more underrepresented events.
And it might and might not, but I won't bet on it.

If you want to bet for the sequence to continue you can bet on the overrepresented events and that the STDV will grow stronger.
The sequence only takes four attempts, wins or four losses.

You wait for a sequence with seven singles or more to end with a series of three.
Or a larger series might end the sequence.

Here you bet for singles and series of two until the second series of three or higher, two loses.
And again you bet for singles and a series of two until the third series of three or higher shows.

Explanation, you have a strong imbalance and you bet for it to continue to get stronger.
The only time you lose is if you get a full regression imminently or a full recovery, wish is very rare.

So if you want to bet on a rolling basis I suggest that approach instead of your question above.

pbbpbppbppbpbpbppbppbpbbppp - bppbbpppppbpbpppbpb – WLWLWLL – WWWLL

pbpbbpbppbpbpbppbbppbpbbb - pbpbbbbbbppbpbbbbbbpbp – WWWLL – LWWWLL

pbpbpbpbbppp - bbppbbbpbbpppbpbbppbpppbbbbbbpppbbbbppbbbppbbpppppbppbpb – LWLWLL - WLWLL

Cheers

 

Should mention I have not tested this approach ...

Cheers

 

Here is one thought - if you follow the overrepresented events - the imbalance you would aim for WW or WLW LWLW LWW and so on and that's it.
With a 15-step delayed fibo you would probably never lose during a lifetime time playing.

Cheers